Add more types of Tracks

[NitroxydeX]

WE NEED TO REWRITE OUR SYSTEM BEFORE WE CAN ADD TRACKS THAT ARE KINDA SPECIAL

• [x] Lachie1770 asked in the MC Forums why 2-Way-Crossings are 5-blocks-wide. We should think about adding an 3x3 version of it. There was a time where it was 1x1.
• [ ] Pdevo suggested a smaller parallel switch track that melds into a smaller reverse parallel switch track http://images.mocpages.com/user_images/64178/1345736684m_SPLASH.jpg
• [ ] Cronosus sugguested a similar option to what Pdevo asked, but one that allowed for switching on both directions from both sides http://www.itvlaky.cz/fotky18461/fotos/_vyr_80283210.jpg
• [x] MggMuggins suggested more variety in the length of slopes. Preferably longer slopes.
• [ ] Parallel Curve by Cronosus
• [x] Street-Crossing by Cronosus

More types to be added

[NitroxydeX]

@CubeRail about 3: You know what you put down in 1? We just take straights and curves and put them together. but the model is a seperate file which we would need to edit. thats why we handle it like that at the moment. and i really cant understand the problem with the straight?

[Lanthan64]

Oh, sorry, I did not knew that. Do I understand You correctly though that what I described in 1. may be possible, but what I proposed in 3. is not?

Speaking of which: The "problem" is just the length. If the straight part of the 90 degree switches were to be shorter the switches could be placed closer to each other. Then the resulting railyards would take up a smaller area on the map. I agree in that this is not a real problem but more of an enhancement, I'd simply consider this type of switch useful.

[NitroxydeX]

The Switches are made like that to align with the curve itself.

The models are a bit shorter but the things we add secure that they work properly how they should.

Like how we do they now is the only way with that code. in 1.10.2+ this will work different. But there should be a minimum straight between each curve. We warn for that in the book.

[Lanthan64]

I see. The lower screenshot is pretty exactly what I had in mind. But if that is not possible with the current system I'll accept that. Anyways, many thanks for the insight!

[pietrodevo]

Is it planned to implement new parallels with next release? What is eventually needed?

[NitroxydeX]

@Pdevo not until rework of the system.

[EternalBlueFlame]

something interesting was suggested to me recently, from a user named Makira. A sloped turn track.

[MggMuggins]

Is it possible? That would be pretty dang cool...

[Cronosus]

this suggestion i receive many times 🗡 and i'm not sure if is possible

[ArgonTheConqueror]

I'm not sure if anyone has suggested something like this before. Can TC have a double switch like this?

[Cronosus]

at this time is not possible create diagonal tracks but this same system is posible to create with actual tracks - combine two switches and crossing

[ArgonTheConqueror]

Well, the diagonal part is not required, but is it possible to make something like this where a double track can branch off, either in 90 degrees, or like a parallel switch?

[NitroxydeX]

@ArgonTheConqueror should be possible in the future with 1.11 but not for 1.7.10 anymore.

[bhechinger]

@ArgonTheConqueror I think this is what you are asking about?

[TheSpareAce]

Could we see something like a 45 degree slope (1x1x1) for going up steep hills, or going down into mineshafts with 2 tracks to go with them (tracks that are like turns except in pitch)? (eg +0° to -45° and +0° to +45°.) They'd be sort of like vanilla rails going uphill except with the gradual increase and the models+textures.

Another idea: A simple Y track.

[TheSpareAce]

http://i.imgur.com/9c772Xj.png

Sorry for my shitty drawing skills.

Here I present you what I mean by my former post here. The straight slope track would be a 1x1 track similar to the Vanilla slope.

[MggMuggins]

I like the slopes. Those make a lot more sense (if we could implement them). However, I think it would do better if the two styles were kinda smashed together, so that you end up with the bottom of the first one, and the top of the second one. That way you don't ever really have a bump.

[NitroxydeX]

The slope idea isn't really good for Minecraft and it would look really weird because the train would float over that track. Always keep in mind: we're in Minecraft not in a fully realistic Unreal Engine game

[EternalBlueFlame]

I could make it work with the rewrite, but it's more of a concern of how the train would look going over it. Just because the tracks and the train's motion bend, doesn't mean the train itself does. Plus you also have to take consideration of the realistic traction loss at those inclines.

Thus why you usually don't see these kinds of slopes in real life.

[TheSpareAce]

I completely overlooked those details.

Edit: Concerning the details of physics, I was only matching the Vanilla standards.

[HydrogenC]

Maybe a overhead line

[HydrogenC]

Is these features still in progress?

[MggMuggins]

The git history is completely available in this repo...

[EternalBlueFlame]

Overhead lines are available in 012+.... CoFH compliant RF pipes are used for overhead lines (thermal dynamics for example).

[HydrogenC]

When will the parallel curve be out？

[NitroxydeX]

@x13989 not before the rewrite.